The Sufi Path is a process of amanesis (remembrance, realization). In pre-eternity, God asked the spirits: Alastu bi Rabikum (Am I not your Lord)? When we come into this material existence, we forget about pre-eternity and the task of life is to remember our way back to the truth concerning the nature of our essential relationship with God. This process of remembering or recollecting is known as amanesis.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

All aspects of created existence are governed by laws, rules and principles. There are consequences for violating these laws, rules and principles on every level of existence -- from the physical, to the social, to the spiritual.

If we befoul ourselves by transgressing various aspects of the ordered character of the universe, then, our own wretched spiritual condition which becomes the consequence with which we must live for having transgressed in such ways. Indeed, we become our own self-created and self-imposed punishment.

God knows how the universe works. Divinity is the One Who has set it up with the nature that it has.

God knows how human beings work. Divinity is the One Who has given us our constructive spiritual possibilities, as well as our potential for destructiveness.

If, by God's grace, we are able to realize our spiritual potential - which alone is at the heart of why we have been given existence at all -- then, all praise for this is due to God. On the other hand, if, by the grace of our own nafs, we are not able to realize our spiritual potential, then we ourselves seal and determine our fate.

God will not have to lift a finger against us on the Day of Judgement. We will have done it all to ourselves.

We will have inflicted grievous spiritual harm upon ourselves, and God merely has to leave us to our own choices and devices. In effect, we will be told: 'Alright, if this is what you want, then, this is what you will get -- in spades'.

People who have spent time in sensory deprivation tanks, or similar situations, speak about a variety of stages that an individual goes through during this process. At some juncture, a stage may come in which the individual is thrown back on to themselves and they began to hallucinate, and their internal life of fantasy and imagination becomes the woof and warp of experience at that point.

We conveniently forget that everything which is positive and interesting in our interior lives is a grace from God. This includes fantasy, memory and imagination.

What would be the condition of our interior lives, if everything positive were removed, and we only had emptiness, darkness, worthlessness, loneliness, and boredom for our eternal companions? In the sensory deprivation tanks, people at least have fantasy or imagination to fall back on, but what if we were brought face to face with what we actually have to offer independently of God's grace -- namely, our own nothingness?

Furthermore, what if these "companions" were bathed in an intense, unrelenting awareness both of what the truth about ourselves is, as well as in a realization of what might have been but, now, is eternally lost? All of this, compliments of our nafs and our free-will offering of allowing ourselves to give in to the incessant whining and nagging of the unending desires of the nafs.

While in this condition of deprivation, we will not be able to go sleep as we can now when we get too tired of ourselves. Moreover, while in this state, we will not be able to distract ourselves, as we can now, with various diversionary tactics in which -- in addition to the participation of our own nafs -- the world, Iblis and the unbelievers also are quite active.

Instead, all we will be able to do is experience the full horror of our own being, devoid of all spirituality and all of the positive supports, capacities, and endowments which God has generously bestowed upon us in this life.

We will not be able to idle away the time using our intelligence and creative imagination to amuse ourselves. Intelligence and creative imagination are gifts of God, and these do not belong to us. They will be summarily stripped from us, like the signs and marks of honor are stripped from a disgraced officer who has been found guilty of traitorous activities in a court-martial.

All we will have is our awareness of the wretched, pitiful, foul, sickening, and agonizingly painful nature of our spiritually and ontologically empty condition -- the one we have spent a life time on Earth in creating. And, we will have the deep, abiding awareness that we have brought ourselves to this lowly condition.

Our fear of God is the realization we have, however dim this realization may be, that when we meet God, then, God will let us know, in no uncertain terms, what we have done to ourselves and just how we have ruined all the good things which God had planned for us. Divinity wanted to shower us with blessings, and we said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

And, God may say to us: "Then, no thanks it is, and in you go to the mother of all sensory/intellectual/spiritual deprivation tanks: Hell. I hope you will enjoy what you have wrought and bought with your life." But, of course, we won't -- not even a little.

God has said of Divinity: "My mercy doth take precedence over My wrath." Yet, God also has warned us of what the consequences are for those who treat the purpose of this Earthly life with contempt.

We should fear our meeting with God for the unwelcome situation in which we have placed Divinity. Now, the difficult decision must be made as to whether, or not, God should permit the human being's capacity as a free agent (as one who has been given the discretionary power to make decisions in life) to take precedence over God's mercy.

Should God honor our status as creatures who have been entrusted with a free will? Or, should Divinity save us from ourselves one last time?

Human beings are very quick in this life to take exception with the possibility that God might be interfering with our precious free choice. In effect, many human beings are saying, if the choice is really mine, then let me do what I want, and I don't want any interference.

If this is how we want it in life, then, why should God change the arrangement in the next life just because we no longer wish to accept responsibility for the consequences which go with the territory of free choice? If God does not change the arrangement, then Divinity permits our freedom to take precedence over Divine mercy -- but, remember, this has been our wish all along.

God loves us and doesn't want this for us. At the same time, Divinity respects our individuality and the way we exercise the free choice which is at the heart of that individuality.

If we go to the mother of all deprivation tanks, it is because we have chosen to do so and God is merely honoring our wish. We did not want Divinity to interfere on Earth, so now Divinity may stay out of the matter in the next life as well.

We are alive now. Sooner or later, we will not be.

When our time is up, so are our opportunities. If an individual will not do things for Allah's sake, then, the individual might think about doing them for her or his own sake.

Know that whatever transgression one commits, one commits them, first and foremost, against oneself. If one, for example, does not say prayers or does not fast, then it is the soul of the one who is abstaining from these things which suffers and no one else - certainly not God. It is such a person's soul which is condemning itself and bringing itself one step closer to possible spiritual ruination.

Doing things as Allah wishes is the best way because these methods serve as the spiritual protocalls or algorithms, so to speak, which God has made available to us for helping us to generate solutions concerning what it is that God wants us to realize about our true spiritual identity and essential spiritual capacity. These Divine protocalls or algorithms are known by Divinity to be effective in bringing about the spiritual transformation of the individual -- as opposed to our own philosophical and scientific inventions which have no capacity for a spiritually transforming efficacy whatsoever.

God has given us all a secret potential. This potential is a partial manifestation, reflection or expression of the hidden treasure alluded to in a well-known hadith qudsi (a non-revelatory saying which comes from the mouth of the Prophet but conveys the communication of Divinity).

This treasure is the intention behind, as well as the purpose of, existence. If one turns one's back on this, then one is working in opposition to the whole fabric and character of being.

God is longing for us with an unfathomable longing. This longing is not for the sake of Divinity since Divinity already has all that can be had. God's longing is for us to come and know and share in what Divinity already knows and is.

This Divine longing is God's wish for us. If we work in accordance with that wish, then, we will find, God willing, that Divinity is happy and overjoyed for our sake. If we work in opposition to that Divine wish, then we may find, God forbid, that Divinity is angry with us for our sake - at what we have denied ourselves.

As a Sufi once said, the real faqir (one who practices austerities and denies himself or herself) is not one who chooses God over the world. The real faqir is one who chooses the world over God.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

The following thoughts arose in response to a question by an individual who wanted to know if a Shaykh thought negatively toward those seekers associated with the spiritual teacher who did not fulfill all the requirements of spirituality - whether exoteric or esoteric. Furthermore, this person wondered how, or if, a fear of Divinity fit into a Sufi framework.

It is not the business of a Shaykh to think badly of one's mureeds (i.e., the seekers that God has entrusted to the Shaykh's care). It is the business of the Shaykh to assist a mureed.

This assistance may take a variety of forms in ways permitted by God. The primary objective, however, is to help, God willing, the individual mureed, to discover his or her true identity, as well as to help the individual, God willing, to come to know one's essential, unique capacity for knowing, loving, cherishing, worshiping and serving Divinity.

Notwithstanding the love, compassion and concern which, God willing, a Shaykh has for a mureed, the foregoing should not be construed to mean that the Shaykh does not see the problems a mureed creates for herself or himself -- that is, for the mureed. If the Shaykh sees, by the Light of God's grace, something which is creating obstacles and veils in the spiritual life of a mureed, then the thoughts, efforts, and concentration of the Shaykh will be toward working, God willing, on how to help the person remove those difficulties.

A person's worship or non-worship of God does not, respectively, make God a greater or lesser God. This merely makes the individual a greater or lesser, human being.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was once asked about what the proper relationship should be between hope in relation to God's Mercy concerning our spiritual mistakes and fear of God's displeasure with respect to our spiritual rebellion. The Prophet responded that the two should be in balance with one another.

The sort of balance to which the Prophet was referring could be illustrated by the well-known Yin/Yang symbol of the Taoist tradition. At the heart of each side of the symbol, which is divided in the middle by a synodal-like curve, there is a dot.

The color of the dot in each side is in opposition to the color of the side it is in. Thus, within each side, there is an element of the other opposing side.

In other words, there is some quality of yin in yang, and there is some quality of yang in yin. Neither side is free or independent of the other.

Similarly, in Islam, and on the Sufi path, there is, or should be, an element of hope in fear, and there should be an element of fear in hope. From the human side of things, neither hope nor fear can be, or should be, independent of the other.

The nature of this fear, however, should not be translated in terms of the emotion that people have in trepidation of the consequences which are believed to be forthcoming for having not been a nice, good, well-behaved little boy or girl. The nature of the fear to which the Prophet is alluding is rooted, partly, in having a deep, abiding awe, respect, and heart-felt awareness (according to our capacity) of being constantly in the Presence of Divinity Whose sheer majesty, incomparability, might, grandeur, unknowability, and complete transcendence, renders human existence to the level of insignificance and infinitesimal value, except to the extent that God gives that existence significance and value.

Will the gnat not tremble before the Sun? If the gnat is ignorant and foolish, then, perhaps, not. But, if the gnat is wise, then surely there will be trembling before the Divine Attributes which are jalal (the array of Divine attributes that are subsumed under the general category of Might and Majesty) - and this would be true even if the fate of our heart's did not lie, as is indicated by one of the hadiths or sayings of the Prophet, between the forefingers of a Divine hand (metaphorically speaking) which can turn those hearts in whatever direction is desired by Divinity.

However, our fear also should be rooted in the following kind of understanding . More specifically, one of the reasons why God may get angry with us is because, in going astray from the sirat-ul-mustaqueem (the spiritually straight path) which God has laid out for us with indescribable care, kindness, compassion, wisdom and consideration, we undermine all the spiritual goodness, happiness, love, joy, felicity, nearness, and so on which God wishes to lavish upon us.

We have to want what God wants for us. The stupidity of human beings is that most of us believe that one can equate what the ego/nafs wants with what God wants, and that in pursuing the former, one is supposedly pursuing the latter.

This can never be. Yet, we continually delude ourselves into supposing this to be the way of things.

From Divinity's side, which really is the only side that matters, God wants to give and give and give to us, without end and without measure. From our side of things, which is the only side which does not matter except to the extent that Divinity wishes it to matter, we, in effect, are telling God to drop dead.

In our arrogance, pride, ignorance, stubbornness, density, darkness, rebelliousness, forgetfulness, heedlessness, insincerity, ingratitude and meanness of being, we are saying that we know better than the One Who has created all the worlds and whatever is in them. We are saying to God: despite what You have told us in Your books of Revelation; despite the warnings of the 124,000 Prophets who have come (from Adam to Muhammad, peace be upon them all); despite the testimony of the Companions, both male and female, of these Prophets; despite the teachings of the people of insight and excellence; despite the evidence of history for all nations and all times, and despite what we ourselves know to the contrary from our everyday experience, we are saying that our friends are: nafs (the seat of rebellion in human beings), Iblis (Satan), dunya (the realm of worldly desire) and the unbelievers (anyone who denies the supremacy of Divinity in all matters).

Why are we saying this? We have allowed ourselves to become habituated to, and hypnotized by, the belief that the ways of Iblis, nafs, the world, and the unbelievers are easier, more convenient, more interesting, more fun, and more liberating than are the ways of Divinity.

As a result we command ourselves to follow the example of the aforementioned unholy four, in preference to all that is good, just, true, beautiful and noble -- within us and without us. In doing so, however, we become bogged down in a morass of spiritual and worldly false-economies through which we have deluded ourselves into believing that we are getting something for nothing when we align with the unholy four, only to find out, subsequently, that there are many, many hidden costs of pain, suffering, and torment for having bartered away a spiritual way of life for extremely ephemeral pleasures and comforts.

We should fear God because we Love Divinity. For, with love, comes the fear of not wanting to let down or disappoint the One we profess to love. We should fear disappointing God or putting ourselves in this kind of situation where such disappointment becomes the inevitable result of our choices and actions.

We should fear having to be dragged before Divinity in the chains of shame with which we shackle ourselves through our acts of commission and omission. This fear comes from the dread of having to face One Who has done so much for us, Who has been so kind and loving and giving and compassionate toward us.

When we look to the quality of Allah's love for us, and, then, we look to the quality of our love for Allah, should we not fear the Day when we can no longer run away from the disparity between the two? Does ingratitude not fear being reminded of its own ingratitude?

Should we not fear that appointed meeting when we must stand mute before the magnificence of Divinity and listen in agonized silence to the unseemly testimony which is brought against us by our hands, feet, eyes and other dimensions of being for having squandered our spiritual inheritance in such thoughtless, ill-conceived, greedy and grasping ways?

Our fear of God is misdirected. we have nothing to fear from Divinity and everything to fear from ourselves. Yet, in a typically human sleight-of-hand, we project our fears on to God because we are in denial about what is the real cause of our fear.

Since God is associated with our fears, we say we fear God. In reality, we fear having to stare into the mirror of Truth concerning ourselves, and poor God takes the rap.

We fear God because Divinity knows the truth about the many times we have soiled ourselves by betraying the trust which has been extended to us. This trust is not just the free will which has been extended to us, nor the spiritual potential which God has secreted within us, nor the responsibility of being God's khalifah throughout creation.

No! God has trusted us to do right by Divinity; to do right by creation; to do right by others, and to do right by ourselves. We have trampled upon this trust. Should we not fear the One Who serves as a reminder to us of these facts, even if nothing at all should be said when we meet with Divinity?

Relative to the bounties and blessings which God is constantly injecting into our lives, very little is being asked of us in return. Mostly, it is a matter of demonstrating some sincere gratitude.

Sincere gratitude is that sphere of human endeavor which is backed up with something beyond a mere profession of the lips. Rather than bear witness to the Oneness of Divinity, or say prayers, or fast, or give zakat (a kind of charity), or do Hajj (pilgrimage to the holy places in and about Mecca during the early part of the twelfth month of the lunar calendar) out of fear of God, why not do these things out of gratitude to Divinity?

Once, after having spent, yet, another night in prayer with, and remembrance of, God, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was asked if it was true that God already had granted the Prophet Paradise. When the Prophet replied in the affirmative, a further question followed: "Then, why do you spend all night in prayer and worship?"

The Prophet's reply was simple. "Should I not be a thankful servant?"

If we are not appreciative of God's kindness to us, God is not hurt or upset for the sake of Divinity. Divinity does not need humanity or its thanks, or lack thereof.

Instead, God feels hurt for our sake. Similarly, God is angry at us for our sake.

God is upset with us because we have brought, or are bringing, upon ourselves our own spiritual demise. We are spoiling everything.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

In relation to dogmatism, people's understanding is conceptually, rather than experientially (in the mystical sense), driven. The former individuals are convinced their understanding of things is correct not because the Truth has experientially visited them and shown them how things are, but because their ego demands that things be such and because their belief or value systems satisfy certain emotional, ideological, behavioral, habitual or vested interests.

The one who is dominated by dogma seeks to dominate others in the same way. As such, they need to have everyone force fit round blocks into square and triangular holes.

Those who would remove the Sufi Path from the context of Islam have no historical or mystical justification for doing so. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the great Sufi masters of the past said that one can pursue this mystical path independently of Islam.

Some of these great mystical teachers have said that not everyone who calls himself or herself a Muslim is a follower of Islam. Furthermore, they have indicated there is more to Islam than just the mechanical and lifeless adherence to a set of exoteric, theological rules.

Unfortunately, there have been some individuals who have taken what some of these teachers have said -- sometimes with pointed humor and irony -- and used such statements in a way that violates the original spirit with which teachings were uttered. People have done this kind of injustice because they have their own axes to grind and agendas to push.

Quite frankly, I have not come across any of these so-called modern versions of the Sufi path which can demonstrate the truth of what they are claiming or maintaining. They assert that what they claim is so, but Truth is not a function of assertion, rather whatever is asserted must be capable of being shown how it accurately reflects, is consistent with, and gives expression to, the Truth.

People who try to impose their own extra-Islamic value system of likes and dislikes onto the Sufi Path cannot prove that what they are saying truly reflects the complete teachings of any of the great Sufi masters of the past or even correctly reflects the very origins of the term "Sufi". In stark contrast, however, anyone who cares to take the time to research matters can easily show that what historically has been known as the Sufi Path is inextricably woven from the fabric of Islam when considered in all of its (islam's) depth, breadth and subtlety.

The burden of proof in this matter is not on those who link the Sufi path to the proper practice of Islam. Rather, the burden of proof is on anyone who would attempt to argue that the Sufi Path is entirely independent of Islam -- although, in so arguing, they may concede, in passing, something to the effect that there could have been a time when, for reasons of historical convenience and circumstance, the Sufi Path may, temporarily, have set up a liaison, of sorts, with the Islamic religious tradition ... but nothing of an a permanent and inherent nature

If these people of 'mysticism by assertion' are not the ones who are being dogmatic, then, let them come forth with their proofs to the contrary of what is being said in the foregoing. Let them demonstrate that their understanding is not merely a matter of "truth" by stipulation.

These would-be Sufi teachers are counting on people to uncritically swallow whatever is being said in this respect. And, indeed, quite a few individuals have accommodated themselves to this hope since many of these latter individuals are all too prepared to accept such stipulations as the gospel truth which cannot, and should not, be questioned simply because these sorts of stipulation fit in with their biases, prejudices, assumptions and so on concerning the Islamic religious tradition.

Someone calling herself or himself a Sufi teacher may offer certain practices and teachings which carry benefit for an individual even though these practices and teachings have, in various ways, been taken out of their original and proper, spiritual, ecological context. Moreover, someone who undertakes these practices or follows these teachings in a sincere fashion may have certain mystical experiences which, seemingly, confirm the truth of what is being said.

What many people fail to understand about the mystical quest is that it is not, ultimately, about having such experiences. The mystical path is about arriving at that destination which allows one to have intimate and permanent insight into the nature of one's essential identity as well as one's unique capacity to serve God as God wishes and not as a function of what we want or don't want.

Only when one is absent from the false self can one be truly present to God. And, only when one is truly present to, with, and for, Divinity, can one's essential identity and unique spiritual capacities be unveiled.

One could have thousands of mystical or mystical-like experiences (not everything of an experientially anomalous nature can be considered mystical) and never be one step closer to the goal of the Sufi path. When one takes initiation with a Sufi shaykh, it is the goal, purpose and destination of the mystical path which must orient the teachings and practices.

A false mystical teacher may help, if God wishes, an individual to take a few steps toward accomplishing the purpose of the mystical quest. But, such a teacher will never be able to transport an individual to the end of the mystical line, no matter how much of what is stated may be true (as far as it goes in its out-of-context manner) in disclosing the nature of different facets of the Truth.

Divinity has established certain spiritual paths for the purpose of helping human beings realize the goal of the mystical quest. These paths are variations on one and the same thing, and, consequently, despite whatever differences may exist from one variation to the next, each of these paths that have been provided by Divinity are, God willing, fully capable of transporting the sincere and committed individual to the desired destination when this person works in conjunction with those who have been, or are, established by Divinity as spiritual guardians of these pathways.

If one does not enter the mystical path through the doorways which have been provided by Divinity -- both with respect to the authenticity of the teacher as well as the authenticity of the Path -- then, one will, sooner or later, begin to spin one's wheels, spiritually speaking. Under these circumstances, the individual has a tendency to mistake circular motion on the horizontal plane of temporality for being spiritual progress in an essential, vertical realm which transcends temporality.

Sweeping dust from one place to another does not make a room clean. Digging many holes does not necessarily permit one to find the spiritual water one is seeking -- irrespective of how welcome one finds the constantly changing venue to be.

The proof of things is, so to speak, in the pudding. This is where choice and freedom come into the picture.

People are free to make mistakes or choose correctly. People are free to misguide others or be themselves misguided. People are free to believe that they are getting on a mystical train which they believe will carry them to a distant destination and not realize that the chosen vehicle is purely local and does not have such destinations on its itinerary or within its capabilities.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether one should, or should not, label some given set of activities as being "Sufi". Ultimately, the issue is whether, or not, what one is engaged in is able, God willing, to help one realize the purpose of life, the nature of one's essential identity and one's unique capacity to love, worship, cherish, know, reflect, and serve Divinity.

Whatever choices an individual makes in this respect has a lot riding on them. This is so precisely because there is falsehood and error, delusion and distortion, and so on.

Not every choice takes one closer to the Truth. Not every choice leads to the same destination. Not every choice will help one, God willing, to work toward realizing essential human possibility.

If one could ascertain the truth of these matters before hand, there would be no need for a mystical path, a spiritual teacher, or Divine guidance. But, in reality, we are not always able to distinguish the true from the false.

We need help in these matters. Our choice of who we want to help us makes all the difference in the world -- both with respect to this present world, as well as in relation to the next world.

Monday, March 28, 2005

Someone wrote to me asking a variety of questions concerning issues of truth, validity, and dogmatism in conjunction with conflicting claims that the Sufi Path is, or is not, integrally linked to the Islamic spiritual tradition. In addition, questions were raised about whether, or not, the newness or antiquity of a tradition said anything of significance about the validity of such a tradition.

--------------

A given mystical path is not valid simply because it is based in antiquity. After all, there have been many theories, mythologies, philosophies, metaphysical belief systems and so on which have come to us from antiquity but which are not necessarily true just because of their seniority or longevity.

A tradition -- whether spiritual, religious, or mystical -- is rendered valid to the extent it is rooted in the truth concerning the way Reality is on some given level of being. If a system which is new, relatively speaking, reflects, to whatever degree, the truth, whereas another system which is rooted in antiquity does not do so -- or does so to a very small degree -- then, the newer system has more validity or authenticity to it than does the ancient system ... and vice versa.

The authenticity or validity of anything is a function of the extent to which something gives expression to, or manifests, the truth. This is true of modern science, and it also is true of mysticism, religion, and spirituality.

A mystical experience isn't valid -- or it is limited in its validity -- precisely to the extent to which it is not an expression of the Truth of things. The issue has nothing to do with what is, or is not, more rooted in antiquity.

The Sufi tradition holds (at least, my understanding of it does) that while each of us is Divine in essence, we are not -- either individually or collectively -- Divinity in Essence. Consequently, each of us is capable according to our capacity to do so, of serving as a locus of manifestation for certain attributive properties of Divinity.

Furthermore, the masters of the Sufi way maintain that Divinity never repeats manifested being in the same way twice. Necessarily, therefore, each of us has something which comes along only once in the history of manifested being.

This uniqueness which goes to the heart of who we are individually is very personal. It doesn't get any more personal than this -- indeed, this unique-never-to-be-repeated-again quality of ours goes to the very heart of our ultimate identities and the purposes for which we have been brought into existence by, and through, Divinity.

However, having said the foregoing, this is not the same as saying that anything and everything we believe, value, say, or do accurately reflects, or gives expression to, what is most essentially, personal about us in the above sense. In other words, all authentic, valid mystical traditions make the distinction between the false self and the essential Self. Whenever something we think, feel, believe, say, or do is colored and oriented by the false self, this is not a valid or authentic manifestation of what is most essentially personal about us in the mystical sense of the word which has been outlined previously.

There are authentic modes or modalities of being, and there are inauthentic modes or modalities of being. When an individual personalizes a mystical tradition in order to cater to, or satisfy, the whims and delusional forces that are active within the false self, then, this kind of personalization of the mystical is problematic because it serves to veil and distort the truth rather than unveil and give accurate expression to whatever dimensions of the truth we have the capacity to reflect or give expression to.

The present moment is the only moment that matters, and much rides on how we engage that moment. If we engage it through the false self, then, all may be lost -- including ourselves. If, on the other hand, we engage the present moment through our essential Selves, then, we are realizing, God willing, the purpose of our lives.

With respect to the issue of dogmatism, there are several comments which can be made. First, one can as easily argue that those who insist on separating the Sufi tradition from Islam are as dogmatic as those who wish to claim that the Sufi tradition is indigenous to Islam.

Secondly, in a sense, the Truth is inherently dogmatic, although mystic masters certainly do not tend to be dogmatic about this. The Truth is what it is, or Reality is what it is, and no amount of sophistry or philosophical slight-of-hand is going to change this, no matter what our ambitions and hopes may be.

The challenge facing us is to attempt to determine, as best we can, what the nature of the Truth is. The issue is not, nor has it ever been, whether or not there is a Truth underlying, making possible, and being manifested through the various realms of existence.

Mysticism is not a relativistic enterprise in the sense that the Truth must be prepared to bow down to our individual agendas concerning what we are, and are not, prepared to recognize as true. We must accommodate ourselves to the Truth -- whatever that may be -- and Truth has no need to accommodate Itself to us.

The Truth will remain what it is whether we recognize it as such or not. Truth is not made more true or less true as a function of our beliefs, likes, dislikes, and so on.

It is only our varying, limited capacities to see, understand and give expression to the Truth which makes it seem as if Truth is a relative phenomenon. What is relative is our individual perspectives and not the Truth which is Absolute on every level of being and throughout all of created existence.

Dogma is a conceptual phenomenon. People who get caught up in their conceptual systems and ways of characterizing or representing various dimensions of reality tend to become dogmatic and narrow in their understanding of any given issue.

"Dogma' and the 'mystical' are mutually exclusive from one another. This is the case because the mystical path is not rooted in concepts, but is rooted, instead, in direct, unmediated (by any set of theories or ideational content) experiential engagement of some dimension of Truth or Reality.

Yaqueen, or spiritual certitude, comes from being tied to Truth in an essential, experiential and trans-rational manner. Being convinced of the correctness in one's conceptual position does not necessarily have anything to do with this aforementioned state of yaqueen although many, many people confuse the two.

When a person is in a state of yaqueen, the experiential insights and understandings which, by the Grace of God, accompany this state informs or directs the way such an individual uses concepts, and, consequently, the concepts which are chosen by, say, a Sufi shaykh to describe -- where possible -- a mystical perspective are rooted in mystical experiences first and foremost, and concepts only secondarily and derivatively. However, there is a limit to how far this process of description of a mystical understanding can be carried since mystical experiences tend to outstrip or transcend the capacity of language to accurately describe the content, character, richness, and dynamics of true mystical experiences.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

The generally accepted technical term among many Sufi shaykhs for the mystical dimension of Islam is "tasawwuf". Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons -- some historical, some cultural, and some linguistic -- the "S-words" (i.e., Sufi and Sufism) have gained ascendancy in the West, and even in some parts of the East, to the almost total exclusion of the term "tasawwuf".

Having said the foregoing, I ought to point out that from the perspective out of which many silsilahs operate, the term "Sufi" actually is more defensible to use than is the other 'S-word' "Sufism". Although there is some discussion which still goes on in certain circles, most people who have the minimal requisite degree of knowledge about this area of study tend to agree that, etymologically, the word "Sufi" is likely to have been derived from the Arabic word "Suf"(in its transliterated form).

It is believed by some (e.g., al-Hujwiri) that the use of the term Sufi arose as a way of linguistically referring to those faqirs or ascetics who, among other practices, wore coarse woolen garments as a means of helping to undermine the body's desire for comfortable garments. In addition, the wearing of these woolen garments helped put a lid on the ego's inclination to wear fancy clothes as a means of gaining approval and acceptance in the eyes of other people as a person of standing in the community.

In the early days of Islam, there were few terms that had common currency within the Muslim community which seemed capable of embracing the spectrum of types of people who were drawn to the Sufi path. For instance the terms "faqir" and "dervish" were often associated with particular kinds of practices and cultures but these usages tended, rightly or wrongly, to be too narrowly conceived in the minds of many people to be used as a more generic, more inclusive term.

Through a complex mingling of historical, cultural and linguistic influences, the term "Sufi" seemed to catch on, across a number of linguistic and cultural regions, as the word to use when talking about those who were interested in, or practitioners of, the mystical dimension of Islam. Yet, among the followers of this path, the term "Sufi" generally would be used only while communicating with people from outside the mystical path since it was the term with which the latter (i.e., the outsiders) were familiar, whereas among the practitioners themselves (the "insiders" as it were) the term "tasawwuf" frequently was used to refer to the mystical path of Islam.

In contrast to the foregoing, the term "Sufism" really is misleading in a variety of ways, some more crucial than others. First of all, the mystical tradition of Islam is not an "ism" like, say, capitalism, communism, socialism, idealism, realism, fundamentalism, surrealism, and so on.

The Reality to which mystical language and practice alludes is not the invention of some human being or group of people. At the same time, one must admit that there are those who do invent their own particular hermeneutic, or theory of interpretation, concerning the nature, meaning and purpose of what the aforementioned Reality is supposedly all about.

The true mystics are those who become absent to themselves (that is, there ego) and present to their Lord. The "inventors" of mystical hermeneutics, on the other hand -- that is, those who impose a theory onto the nature of Reality -- insist on becoming present to themselves (i.e., their false sense of self) and absent from the Reality of Divinity for which human beings have the God-given potential of realizing.

Actually, true mystics are scientists in the best sense of the word. The pseudo-mystics are merely philosophers who have projected their speculative meanderings onto the Face of Reality and, thereby, veiled themselves from the actual nature of existence in the process.

To be a scientist in the mystical sense of the word, one must be willing, if necessary, to put one's physical life (but not the lives of others) on the line in one's quest for the true character of issues involving, among other possibilities, being, identity, purpose, meaning, justice, knowledge, integrity, and love. And, even if one is not called upon to sacrifice one's physical life, one must seek to sacrifice one's ego or false self on the altar of submission to Reality. In short, in one way or another, one must be prepared to die to oneself.

Contrary to the opinion of many, the statements of the true mystics can be empirically tested. However, one has to go through an appropriate process of supervised training in order to become a competent and qualified participant, God willing, in the discipline of mystical science.

If a person called oneself a physicist, a chemist, a medical doctor, or an engineer without having gone through the necessary education and training, few would accept his or her statements concerning the reality of these disciplines, and even fewer people would entrust one's technical problems to such people. Although anybody has the right to voice an opinion, not all opinions are informed, insightful or qualified in the required, minimal manner and, thereby, renders those opinions worthy of being listened to as coming from someone who knows, within varying limits, whereof she or he speaks.

For example, one doesn't come in off the streets and begin doing physics and, and as a result, immediately grasp the breadth and depth of the relationship between, say, experiments in particle physics and the theory of quantum mechanics. A great deal of time and study is required to be able to reach a point of understanding why and how various experimental outcomes do, in fact, help verify various aspects of quantum theory.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the mystical sciences, many physicists, chemists, doctors and engineers do not see the irony of their proffering opinions on various facets of mystical science despite not having gone through even step one of the long training and learning process which is necessary to become, God willing, a bonafide, qualified mystic -- someone who knows something about the issues entailed by mystical sciences. Many of the same people who would reject, out of hand, the pronouncements of people who did not possess the appropriate sort of credentials of expertise in their respective fields, somehow seem to feel that all this should change when it comes to their own pronouncements about a discipline like mystical science in which they have no expertise, training, education or credentials.

At the very least, such people are being very inconsistent, if not hypocritical, in their use of ideas such as 'expertise', 'competence' and 'mastery' with respect to a given discipline. A more problematic ramification is when such people attempt to use their authority as scientist of one kind to cast aspersions on scientists of a kind with which they are unfamiliar. It is as if a non-mathematician were to ridicule mathematics simply because such an individual had no idea what the field actually involved due to a lack of education, experience and understanding.

Of course, this very same kind of argument can be, and often is, used by spiritual or mystical frauds in an attempt try to cover up their spurious deeds and pronouncements. Precisely because true mystical science lies beyond the horizons of most people, almost anyone can come along and say something and claim that what they have said is the truth.

If someone were to express skepticism in relation to such behavior or statements, the come-back of the pseudo-mystic can always be: "You just don't understand. Unfortunately, there have been so many of these charlatans, the whole area of mysticism -- and in what follows I am taking poetic license with a statement made by Winston Churchill in a much different context -- is something of a mystery, wrapped up in an enigma, surrounded by a seemingly impenetrable cloud of unknowing.

One of the ramifications of this muddying of the waters has been to lead many people to confuse the occult, magic, astrology and spiritism with the mystical path. The latter has absolutely nothing to do with the former four areas of study, and vice versa.

Furthermore, most people are not prepared to take the time which is required to be able to begin to sift out the true from the false when it comes to mystical issues and questions. Consequently, many people withdraw in utter frustration from the whole area and consider these matters to be mere figments of the imagination.

In some cases these people would be correct. In other cases they would be quite wrong. The ability to distinguish which is which is a function of Divine guidance.

The mystical path is not irrational, but it does have trans-rational dimensions at its core which extend beyond the handling capacities of linguistic and rational modalities of logic. These trans-rational dimensions can inform rational processes, and, thereby, help generate, God willing, spiritual insight and personal transformation, but rational analysis has no access to these realms.

The mind can either work in concert with these dimensions and, thereby, be in a position to make use of the numerous treasures which can be brought back from the realm of the Unseen for the betterment of all creation. Or, the mind can act in opposition to the trans-rational dimensions alluded to earlier and, as a result, enter into a mind-set of oppression, denial, and antagonism in relation to mystical issues.

In any event, because of the trans-rational, ineffable, relatively inaccessible qualities which are associated with the esoteric dimension of Islam, some people -- unilaterally, and, frequently, quite arbitrarily -- have taken it upon themselves to contend that if 'they' do not understand what the mystical tradition is all about, then, it must be the invention of some overly active imagination.

As a result, in the minds and hearts of such people, the mystical realm tends to be reduced to an "ism", like so many other conceptually invented 'isms'. Whether we like it or not, words have the capacity, both connotatively and denotatively, to influence the way we think about a variety of issues -- from religion, to politics, to society, justice and the nature of life.

The term "Sufi' has an actual historical root which attempts to make identifying reference to a specific kind of rigorous perspective, whereas, in many respects, the word "sufism" has become divorced from the historical and ontological realities out of which the word "Sufi" originally arose. Consequently, all too frequently in our times, "sufism" has come to mean whatever any given person wants it to mean, and, in the process, tends to becomes conflated with the occult, the vague, the magical, the mythical, the strange, and the wishful.

The best term is "tasawwuf". After that, the word 'Sufi' is more given to misunderstanding than is tasawwuf, but is less problematic than the term "sufism", and, moreover, the word "Sufi" is historically and etymologically, more defensible than is "sufism".

"Sufism" carries the connotation of all isms -- that is, of being made by human beings. Furthermore, "sufism" is a derivation of a derivation and, therefore, twice removed from the original situation. In being twice removed, it has accumulated some questionable philosophical baggage.

Unfortunately, the term "Sufi" is, by association", becoming increasingly undermined in its meaning by the problems surrounding many of the current usages to which "sufism" is applied. Nonetheless, it is better, in many respects from the other "S-word".

Nevertheless, until such time as the word "tasawwuf" becomes more prominent, if it ever does, then, one is kind of stuck with the lesser of two evils, so to speak. For reasons outlined in the foregoing, one can use the term "Sufi" rather than "Sufism" in order to engage western vocabularies, and, in the mean time, whenever one has the opportunity, such as right now, one can indicate that "tasawwuf" is the proper word to use.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Just a note to let those who are interested know that beginning tonight, Friday, March 25, 2005, 10:00 p.m., EST, the Sufi Study Circle will be airing on Anab's Sufi Oasis Internaet radio station, via live365.com. The hour program will also be aired on Saturday, March 26, 2005, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and, again, on Sunday, March 27, 2005, from 7:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m.. In addition, new versions of the Sufi Study Circle will be aired in the same time slots during each succeeding week.

The Sufi Study Circle is intended to explore some of the essential ideas, principles, and values of the Sufi mystical tradition through stories, essays, discussions, interviews, poetry, and music. I hope you will participate.

All of us have within us the capacity to recognize the truth. When one encounters truth in the writings of someone, like is attracted to like -- that is, the truth within one is drawn to the truth within that which one is reading.

But, let me pose several problems. Let us assume someone is reading a book and there is truth in the book and something within the individual recognizes that truth as truth.

Is the truth which is recognized as true, true because of who said it, or because of something in the nature of what is being said, as well as recognized as being true because of something inherent in the individual doing the reading, and, therefore, the truth in what is being read would be true independently of who said it?

False teachers are experts -- some more so than others -- at being able to write things which contain, to varying degrees, elements of the truth. Yet, such people do not participate in, or have any gnosis of, such truths, even though their books may contain such truths. Unfortunately, we all, sometimes, have a tendency to confuse the message and the one through whom the message may come. When we do this, we tend to assume that the one conveying the message is capable of conveying the message because the message reflects what is within these people, but this need not be so.

Some people abuse the capacity within them for recognizing the truth and prostitute that ability for the purposes of ego -- namely, the wish to be considered by, and treated by, others as a spiritual guide and teacher ... as someone who knows the truth in an intimate manneer. Such people may speak the truth -- within certain limits -- because they are adept at picking up on the truth spoken by others who are, unlike themselves, one with the truth, so, that for a truly realized individual, message and messenger are but different sides of the same coin.

False teachers are parasites on the truth conveyed by true teachers. As such, when a seeker after the truth consumes any truth which may be transmitted by means of a false teacher, then, like consuming any food infested with parasites, there may be problematic consequences for those who swollow such foods, even though the intentions of the one who is hungry for the truth may have been quite innocent and sincere.

Recognizing the truth and conveying the truth are not sufficient conditions to establish that someone is an authentic teacher. The mystical path is not about ideas, concepts, theories, or the like, nor is it an intellectual exercise, and consequently, one can only get extremely linited flashes of the reality of things through written works ... even though these limited flashes may, within limits, give expression to certain dimensions of the truth.

Someone can write nice, uplifting, informative, interesting, amusing, thought-provoking, and even true books. However, this does not mean that such people are capable of being the venue through whom barakah or grace is transmitted to others, and this latter facet of being a locus of manifestation for the radiation of grace is the key to helping seekers make spiritual progress through the lifting of various kinds of spiritual veil.

In being drawn to the truth of something, one has to understand Who is doing the drawing and who it is that is being drawn. Moreover, one has to come to have insight into just what it is that one is being drawn to, and the means of one's being drawn.

Although we all have within us the capacity to recognize the truth, we all also have within us the capacity for veiling, distorting, turning away from, and corrupting the truth. If the matter were simply a matter of being able to recognize the truth when we came into contact with it, then, no one would need a teacher or spiritual guide, and everyone would be a realized mystic.

Since this is not the case, the answer to the mystery of Self-realization must lie elsewhere. The answer must be more complex and subtle than merely having a capacity for recognizing the truth.

Truth/Reality is infinite. There are many forces within us and without us which are dedicated to ensuring that we never realize the full extent of the truth for which we have been given the capacity to do so by Divinity.

Consequently, sometimes what we feel or believe or think to be the truth (e.g., because it seems to resonate with something within us)is nothing other than the ego looking at a mirror. So, one of the problems with which a seeker is confronted is this: how does one distinguish within oneself that dimension of one's being which is capable of recognizing the truth from that dimension of one's being which is capable of veiling and distorting the truth for its own non-spiritual purposes?

We read something in a book. It resonates with something within us. Because of the experience of resonance, or familiarity, or attraction which we have concerning what is said, we may say: "Ah, this is the truth."

But, is it? How do we know? How can we be sure? How do we test it? What are the criteria of evaluation which are to be used? What instruments are to be used in this process? How are these instruments to be calibrated so that we can trust the readings which they give? Who will confirm our findings, and how do we know that we can rely on such confirmation?

Who is doing the recognizing in any given case of calling something the truth? Is it the true self, or the false self?

None of the foregoing questions can be answered on one's own -- at least, not without considerable help. One cannot discern the truth of these matters merely through effort, concentration and diligence. Much, much more is needed, and this something "more" only can be found by associating (spiritually) with an authentic guide of the mystical path.

There are people who can speak and write volumes about the mystical path. Much of this may even be true (up to a point), but such individuals may not have the least taste of the reality of Being to which the mystical path invites each of us. The process of realizing the truth of one's essential spiritual identity and one's unique spiritual capacity goes beyond what can be recognized as true on the surface of things.

In fact, when one fully realizes the truth, all of the authentic guides of the mystical path, across spiritual traditions, have indicated that the 'surface' of experience becomes completely transformed in the process. What one recognized as true, previously, is still true, but it becomes something much more in the process -- so much so, that one realizes that what one recognized as true previously was itself really a tremendous distortion of the Truth, even though it was true within its own framework of understanding.

I can remember each time my shaykh, Dr. M. Qadeer Baig (may God be pleased with him), used to come out of doing a 40 day seclusion (and during my association with him,he did more than 15 of these), Dr. Baig would talk about revising the thesis he had written as part his doctoral requirements ... a thesis which A. J. Arberry, who was his external examiner, described as being the best thing ever written on the Sufi path in the English language.

The reason Dr. Baig wanted to revise his thesis was because his understanding had changed as a result of what he had experienced during his seclusion. Furthermore, the desire to change what had been written wasn't because what had been said previously was incorrect, but because his new understanding was more correct than what he had said in the thesis.

So, with respect to the problem of recognizing the truth, the answer depends on: what one means by recognizing the truth of something: who is doing the recognizing; on what level is the truth being engaged; how did the truth come to one, and what degree of noise-to-signal ratio, so to speak, is involved in that which has been received or recognized?

Moreover, the significance of such answers depends on whether one has been opened up to the aforementioned possibilities through an authentic spiritual guide or through a spiritual charlatan. In the latter case, the truth is like a Trojan horse which contains, hidden within the external form, a virulent set of forces which attacks our spiritual immunity system and induces a variety of diseases of the soul ... some of which are quite lethal.

...by the way, Dr. Baig never actually got around to revising his book. If he had, he would have re-written the book more than 15 times ... instead, Dr. Baig lived the truth, and as such, he was an amazing reference work through which to engage the truth, according to my own capacity to do so.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

A Christian wrote to me seeking the perspective of a Muslim concerning the troubled times in which we all live. More specifically, the individual was wondering about how to deal with the considerable intolerance and hatred which seems to surround us today -- even within various religious traditions. In addition, this individual was interested in whether peace on Earth was realizable given the extent of hostilities which exist in the world today.

-------------

George Bernard Shaw once said of Islam and Muslims something along the following lines. Whenever I read the Qur'an and look at the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), my heart is filled with joy and love, so I want to rush and become Muslim. However, whenever I look to Muslims and see how they live their lives, I want to run away from the religion altogether.

Many Muslims are fond of saying that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Whenever I hear this I am tempted to say, and sometimes do say, that Islam is also the fastest dying religion in the world because more and more Muslims are losing touch with the real spirit and essence of this tradition.

There is a huge difference between Islamic history and Muslim history. Most people, however, both Muslim and non-Muslim, confuse the two and assume that the latter is synonymous with the former, and this is not the case.

For instance, one does not have to do a great deal of research to demonstrate that vested western political, economic, cultural and religious interests have played a huge role in shaping what is going on in most Muslim countries -- including the present 'crisis' in Iraq . Nevertheless, notwithstanding these truths, Muslims need to take a good, long hard look at themselves in the mirror to understand what role they, themselves, have played in bringing the Muslim world to its present unenviable position - economically, legally, politically, scientifically, environmentally, morally and spiritually.

I have started out in this way, because I want readers to understand that the problems which people are facing within the Christian tradition are not unique to them. Most people, irrespective of their spiritual tradition, who are serious about spirituality -- both in terms of its possibilities as well as in terms of its responsibilities -- are deeply concerned about the increasing size of the gap between what any given spiritual tradition offers and what all too many people are doing, or not doing, with respect to what is being offered through our spiritual traditions.

None of what went on in either of the three Gulf Wars, for example, can be reconciled with what Jesus or Moses or Muhammad (peace be upon them all) taught. As the old rock group, The Buffalo Springfields, once wrote in a song called: 'For What It's Worth', "nobody's right, if everybody's wrong".

The people on all sides of these conflicts try to justify what they are doing with talk of principles involving rights, freedom, democracy, truth, justice, fairness, and so on. In reality, no such principles are involved.

It is all about money, resources, control, selfishness, hatred, revenge, ignorance, pride, prejudice, illusion, bias, false presuppositions, hostility, darkness, power, authoritarianism, fear, greed, and stupidity. Sadaam Hussein - to whatever extent the media demonization of him is warranted - is not the only possible madman and thug involved in the Iraq crisis.

The situation vis-a-vis the Gulf, and it appears that this scenario may be played out again in the near future in neighboring countries, gives expression, in miniature, to what is going on throughout the world. The Gulf situation reflects the ugliness of the human condition -- a condition which is everywhere apparent on the world stage.

Some of this ugliness we hear about and know about now. Some of this ugliness, we only come to know about later. And, some of it - a great deal of it, actually -- we may never come to know about - at least, not in this world.

For example, only recently, and quite by chance, did I come to learn about the extent of the uncivilized condtions which the tens of thousands of refugees of Fallujah had to endure at the hands of so-called coalition forces. These people who were forced, under threat of death, to leave their homes prior to the onslaught against Fallujah, were given little, or no, housing, food, water, or medical assistance by the coalition forces.

The foregoing report did not come from al-Jazeera but, rather, from a private American citizen, Mark Manning, who risked much to go there. His eye-witness testimony belies the sort of manufactured news which one often receives through the American media -- whether left or right.

What does all of this have to do with the inquiry with which this blog began? We live in insane times, and our problem is that we would like everybody to live in accordance with the principles of spirituality rather than the rule of ego and the desires of the carnal soul which, seemingly, are so much easier to abide by -- although, in reality, this is a totally false presupposition ... and we see the results of the reality beneath this false presupposition all around us.

The challenge facing us, and people like us (that is, those who are fed-up with all of the carnage and hostilities), is how do we proceed in the midst of such insanity? How do we proceed when confronted by the duplicity of what people profess (especially so-called leaders) - whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Native American, or whatever -- and what they actually do?

Part of the answer comes in realizing, as one of the characters in the comic strip "Pogo" announced more than thirty years ago, "We have met the enemy, and they is us. We must understand, that there, but for the Grace of God, go we, and even with the Grace of God, we ourselves sometimes become caught up in the same insanity which so revolts us.

Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, and so on (peace be upon them all) were all hated in their times by different portions of the population. Other people in their times feared what these individuals were calling people to -- in other words, to God, and away from the world, human desires and vested interests.

Their times were insane as well, and, presumably, this is why these individuals were sent by God -- to help people deal with the insanity. And, even if the insanity only could be curbed for a time, and not completely defeated, then, these individuals, by the Grace of God, came to teach people how to live in spite of, and in the midst of, such insanity.

I do not believe that it is possible to achieve heaven or paradise on Earth. Indeed, if the aforementioned individuals, who are the greatest among human beings to ever walk the face of God's good Earth, could not, with God's help, establish heaven or paradise on Earth, then, I think only the greatest of arrogance could suppose that far lesser human beings could achieve what such spiritually gifted individuals did not, and, in fact, were not permitted to, achieve, by Divinity.

Whatever peace, joy, happiness, ecstasy, stability, harmony and love is going to be realized must, God willing, come from within. It will not come from without, except in very ephemeral, limited ways.

The spiritual heroes and heroines were happy and loving and compassionate despite the insanity. Indeed, they ministered, each in their own way, to the insanity -- knowing, I believe, that even if one could not eradicate the disease (the false-self), nonetheless, they could, God willing, help some individuals to learn how to fight-off and cope-with, this human malady and even, if one were extraordinarily blessed, how to realize the true Self - of which each of these individuals were unique, magnificent, beautiful, wonderful, inspiring expressions.

In short, they taught that the source of the insanity is within each of us. They also taught that the solution to that insanity lies within as well, but at a deeper, more essential level.

What inspires me, drives me, directs me, orients me, guides me, informs me, colors me, sustains me, and shapes me is my relationship with my mystical/spiritual teacher. Such teachers carry on the work of the great spiritual personalities who have preceded them.

In fact, such teachers are but different manifestations of one, and the same, spiritual reality. The truth which flowed through Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and so on (peace be upon them all), also flows through such individuals according to the God-given spiritual capacity of such individuals -- although not everyone who claims to be such a teacher actually is (a problem to be discussed at another time, perhaps).

Everything that I know about Islam, I know through my spiritual teacher, Dr. M. Qadeer Baig (may God be pleased with him) who was kind enough, while living in this world, to take me on as a reclamation project many years ago. Unfortunately, there are many Muslims who would claim that what is being taught by individuals like Dr. Baig -- and others like him -- is un-Islamic ... and the world is much the worse for such rigid attitudes and dogmatism.

Monday, March 21, 2005

What do you know about evolutionary theory? Or, maybe there are two questions here: what do you think you know, and what do you actually know?

In reality, if people are honest about the matter - and quite irrespective of whether they believe in evolution or they are opposed to it - most individuals probably would have to acknowledge that they know almost nothing at all about the actual nuts and bolts of the issues at the heart of evolutionary theory. Their belief concerning this matter - whatever the character of that belief may be - is, for the most part, rooted in two sources: (1) a largely unexamined acceptance of the opinion of others; (2) the extent to which evolutionary theory makes continuing on with the rest of their philosophical or religious perspective easier or more difficult.

In addition, the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory has been plagued by the fact that most of the advocates for various sides of this issue have been conducting the discussion on the wrong level of engagement. More specifically, people have been arguing mostly in terms of the evidence of paleobiology, or the anatomic/fossilized data that has been drawn from zoological and botanical studies, and, unfortunately, the matter cannot be settled, one way or the other, with any degree of certitude when approached in this manner.

On this level of discussion, one, at best, can obtain data which is either consistent with, or raises problems for, evolutionary theory. However, there is no smoking gun (either for or against) to be found - just self-serving and heated rhetoric which is cast in the garments of apparent rigor.

Furthermore, contrary to what many people believe, Darwin has nothing at all to say about either the origins of species or the origins of life in general. The entire argument in his universally known, but largely unread, book is not about the origin of species but about the plausibility of a form of argument which alludes to such a possibility without ever spelling out the mechanism.

Natural selection acts on what is. It presupposes what is.

Natural selection does not cause what is, but, rather, helps determine which aspects of what is will continue to be. Natural selection introduces nothing new into the evolutionary picture, but only says something about the aspects of that picture that are most consonant with the existing dynamic of interacting natural forces.

Therefore, the cause of that which natural selection comes to act upon still stands in need of an explanation. You cannot use natural selection as an explanation for that which natural explanation clearly presupposes without becoming entangled in completely circular thinking, and this certainly does not constitute an explanation of any kind.

Moreover, the idea of the accumulation of small variations does not really account for either the origins of life in general, or for the origins of the different biological blueprints, so to speak, on which the notion of species difference is based. Since variation presupposes that which is capable of such variation, what needs to be explained is the origins of the capacity for variation.

Genetics is not the science which provides an account of the story of the origins of this capacity. Rather, genetics is merely the science which delineates how such a capacity operates once it has arisen.

Only with the advent of modern molecular and cellular biology have we finally come into contact with the sort of information which allows one to make insightful judgements about the plausibility of evolutionary theory as an adequate account for the origins of life on Earth. When one integrates the disciplines of molecular and cellular biology with data derived from geology, hydrology, meteorology, and cosmology - along with what has been learned about organic and inorganic chemistry - then, one is in a position to work toward an informed understanding concerning the questions which surround and permeate the possibility of whether the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution offers an acceptable paradigm through which to establish defensible explanations concerning origin of life issues.

With respect to the foregoing comments, one might wish to ask something along the following lines:"Isn't one obligated to defer to long- standing guidelines, like Ockham's razor, when engaging issues such as the debate between evolutionists and creationists, and, if so, doesn't this mean that one should accept evolution as being the simpler of the two accounts concerning origins?"

For those who may be unfamiliar with the idea of Ockham's razor -- which, sometimes, is referred to as the principle of parsimony -- this precept (first stated by William of Ockham in the 13-14th century) maintains, in effect, that: assumptions, terms, and concepts should not be multiplied beyond necessity. One of the problems facing this principle is that we cannot always be sure by what is entailed when the phrase: "beyond necessity" is used.

Theories are, by nature, projections onto a body of data, and, in the process, theories seek to make coherent sense of such data. Unfortunately, the fit between the form of a theory and the structural character of a given data set is, usually, not precise since there tend to be both empirical and logical lacunae in a theory which leave a variety of facets of the data unexplained or associated with questions that cannot be adequately addressed by the theory - that is, so-called anomalous results, facts, or data.

In addition, over time (both short and long term), assumptions, vocabulary, and concepts all change, and, among other things, this makes comparisons between even similar, scientific theories rather difficult, let alone between relatively different approaches to a given body of data such as is the case in relation to evolutionary and creationist accounts of the origins of life on Earth. Consequently, trying to determine which of two theories has, or has not, multiplied terms, concepts, or assumptions 'beyond necessity' is a complex problem, and, often times, an issue that cannot be easily, if at all, resolved.

Furthermore, implicit in the idea of 'beyond necessity' is the assumption that, in any given instance of phenomena, we know what is going on and, therefore, we know what is, and is not, necessary as far as description, understanding, and explanation are concerned in such cases. In truth, we rarely are in a position to be able to ascertain the boundary conditions of necessity with respect to that which is to be treated as requisite - i.e., necessary - terms, conditions, and assumptions.

Now, the 'reality' of 'things' is all there is. And, certainly, no theory should impose something on to 'reality' which does not belong there and, as such, would be 'beyond necessity'.

However, there is nothing which obligates one to accept any given application of Ockham's razor as an expression of universal truth. Ockham's razor is a working principle that, loosely speaking, indicates there is a certain desirable symmetry in having our understanding exhibit congruence - which is itself an ambiguous idea - with the 'data' to which our experiential engagement of reality gives rise. Nevertheless, simply because a theory claims to give expression to this principle, this does not, automatically, mean the principle in question has been served - indeed, a lot of things have been claimed in the name of Ockham's razor, and not all of these claims are necessarily legitimate expressions of this principle in action.

For instance, to work from the assumption of randomness is not necessarily any more parsimonious than to work from an assumption of Divine design. In fact, one can never prove anything to be a function of random events since there always could be some unknown algorithm which is capable of generating a given structure that, heretofore, has been assumed to be an expression of random phenomena.

Alternatively, there is no inherent contradiction in proposing that evolution does occur, and, yet, simultaneously, argue that such evolutionary transformations give expression to Divine design. There has been more than one theistically oriented thinker who has taken this sort of stance (e.g., deChardin and Matthew Fox) - and, one can note this fact quite apart from the matter of the ultimate tenability of these particular theories.

One of the crucial issues - a primary 'sticking' point, as it were - underlying the evolutionist versus creationist debate turns on whether biological origins and/or change is, or is not, a function of purely random events, or, considered from a slightly different perspective, is a function of events that may be determinate but are, in some sense, self-contained and, consequently, quite independent of any need to invoke a theistic dimension to either account for such processes, or to set them in motion, or to regulate them.

If there is no God, then, assuming a Deity in order to account for phenomena which are 'purely' natural is, according to this way of thinking, a violation of Ockham's razor. On the other hand, if there is a God, and God created the physical universe, then, assuming a purely physical account (whether of a random, or a determinate, but non-linear kind) to explain phenomena that, ultimately, are rooted in Divine dynamics of creation is also a violation of Ockham's razor, for it has construed things in a way which takes them 'beyond necessity' -- necessity being established by reality, not theory.

Even if one were to demonstrate there were a set of physical, chemical, biological, and thermodynamical laws which were capable of adequately describing and explaining the origins of life on Earth, such a set of laws, in and of itself, does not preclude the possibility that a Deity or Supreme Being has authored, generated and established those laws. In other words, the existence of a complete scientific theory concerning the origins of life cannot be used as grounds for invoking Ockham's razor in order to disallow the possibility that the existence of those laws is due to Divine activity. This is so because the idea of Divine creation could be seen to be fully consistent with such a set of laws and, therefore, the former cannot be either empirically or logically precluded by the presence of the latter laws.

The matter is rationally indeterminate as it stands. And, Ockham's razor is incapable of deciding the issue because what is 'beyond necessity' cannot be settled by a philosophical or methodological principle that cannot, by itself, determine the nature of 'necessity', and, thereby, establish a baseline against which 'beyond' can be measured in any reliable, undeniable fashion.

Aside from what has been said above, there is a further difficulty with the use of Ockham's razor. More specifically, this principle tends to presuppose that the idea of what constitutes 'necessity' is something which is capable of being resolved through rational means - in other words, use of this principle tends to have a rationalistic bias to it ... or, at least, this is how the principle tends to have been employed down through the years, and, moreover, such a bias reflects the phiosophical orientation of its 'inventor', William of Ockham, who was a proponent of scholasticism - a form of thinking that was deeply influenced by the logic and metaphysics of Aristotle.

If, however, the nature of reality is such that it is not capable of being reduced to, or completely circumscribed by, rationalistic methods, then, one has to question the meaning and value of bringing Ockham's razor into the discussion. One cannot assume one's conclusions, and through one's desire for 'rational' accounts of the universe, demand that reality fit into one's rationalistic molds.

One must take 'reality', whatever this might be, on its own terms - as best one can. Maybe, some levels of 'what is' can be understood through rational modalities - as far as the terms, assumptions, and concpets of such modalities go -- and that these modalities are, more or less, accurate, or useful, ways of talking about such phenomena - and, indeed, the successes of science, mathematics, and technology are consistent with this sort of perspective.

On the other hand, there may be some dimensions of 'what is' that fall beyond the horizons of rational discourse -- not because such realms are irrational, but because they supercede the limitations inherent in the capacity of reason to grasp the nature of 'what is' within such dimensions of Being. If so, then, to invoke rational principles to explain what is supra-rational is a violation of the spirit of Ockham's razor even though, for the most part, this, usually, has not been part of the mind-set underlying use of this philosophical principle.

For a much more technical discussion of the origins of life issue, take a look at:

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Many of us have experienced the condition of spiritualmalaise. Although this malady can assume many differentshapes and forms, all of these forms tend to flow from asort of spiritual unhappiness, accompanied by feeligns ofalienation, as well as a sense of emptiness or lack ofinterest and commitment to spiritual matters.

Years ago, in the Fifties, a movie director, Don Siegal,did a film called the 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'.It starred Kevin McCarthy and, I believe, Dana Wynter.About thirty years, or so, ago, a remake of this moviewas made. It featured a couple of Canadian actors -Donald Sutherland and Art Hindle, and the picture alsostarred Jeff Goldblum, Brooke Adams, Angela - or wasit Veronica - Cartwright and Leonard Nimoy.

The director of the earlier version, Don Siegal, evenhad a small role in the re-make as a taxi driver whohas a menacing presence. Robert Duvall also hadan uncredited, non-speaking cameo in the remakeas a priest on a swing whose general ambience atthe beginning of the film helps set the tone for themovie which follows.

In any event, the basic premise of the story was,and is, this. From deep space comes a form of lifewhich somehow drifts to Earth and lands in the formof spores which take root and begin to go throughtheir life-cycle.

Part of the life cycle of these alien spores is the capacityto latch onto sentient, conscious, intelligent life forms ofEarth and withdraw the life force, bodily characteristics,intelligence, personality, and consciousness of Earthcreatures -- especially human beings -- and assume theidentities of those whom they 'take over'. This transferand transformation takes place when the sporeshave grown into plants that gave rise to large pods outof which the pseudo-human would arise when the podis placed near to a human being who is asleep.

In every way but one, these alien duplicates areidentical to the bodies they snatch. The body-doubleshave no emotions.

The way the aliens see things is that they are thesolution to human problems. They feel that most, if not all,of the turmoil and tragedy of the world is due to the wayin which emotions adversely affect life. Since therewould be no jealousy, envy, hatred, selfishness, greed,pride and so on, when the alien life forms assume humanidentities, then, the world would, finally, experiencepeace and harmony.

The human beings who stumble onto the invasionconspiracy, however, have a different read on theontological challenge facing humankind. Accordingto them, if there were no emotions, then, there wouldbe no love or passion connected to life either, andthey believe such emotions go to the heart of whatit is to be a human being.

For the human heroes and heroines of the film, the"offer" of getting inner peace, as well as worldharmony, in exchange for losing the essence or soul ofwhat makes human beings human is just too high a priceto pay and, consequently, humanity will just have totry to work, or stumble, toward peace and harmony insome other way. Naturally, this human perspective leads toa life and death struggle with the would-be alien antagonistsand, therein, lies the dynamics of the story as it unfoldsduring the course of the picture.

In the original movie, the character played by KevinMcCarthy is finally able, with a bit of the coincidentalluck of dramatic license, to convince the authoritiesthat he is not crazy and that the story he has beenrecounting is the truth. More specifically, humanity isin imminent peril of destruction should the invasion ofthe body snatchers be allowed to continue unchecked.However, in the remake of the movie, the end of thestory is much more ominous, and the movie-goer isleft in an ambiguous state concerning whether or nothumanity is going to survive the invasion.

What has all of this got to do with the issue ofunhappiness concerning one's spiritual state andthe accompanying feelings of emptiness and lackof emotion concerning spirituality, family, friendsand life? People who experience spiritual malaise-- and we all do go through this from time to time-- are, in a sense, being invaded by, among otherthings, a body snatcher known as "nafs".

Spiritually, while in such a state, we are driftingbetween sleep and wakefulness. While we areasleep, nafs latches onto our being and begins itsprocess of transforming us according to its pre-programmed agenda.

Like the alien forms of life in the 'Invasion of theBody Snatchers', the nafs is offering us a form ofpeace -- the peace that comes from not strugglingto realize that which is most essential to the humanbeing -- namely, spiritual love and passion forDivinity and the purpose of Creation. Just as in themovie, however, the price which must be paid foraccepting this offer is the lost of that which actuallydefines our essential, human identity and spiritualpotential.

While in a state of spiritual malaise, the deadeningof one's feelings for family, friends, and life are signsof the kind of peace nafs has in mind for one. However,unless the transformation process of the nafs has beencompleted, one, by the Grace of God, still has theopportunity of snapping out of this state from timeto time -- either temporarily or permanently.

This process of 'snapping out of it' takes place whenthere is some degree of spiritual awakening which comesto us through whatever means -- whether in the form ofprayers, zikr, fasting, Fatiha, or in some other way. Tothe extent we are awake in this sense, then, thetransformation process envisioned by nafs cannotproceed -- in fact, it is forced to reverse course, tosome degree.

On the other hand, when, spiritually speaking, onegoes back to sleep, the process of spiritual imperialismand colonialism starts up again and seeks to take overmore and more of our humanity through guile and, ifnecessary, force. This battle takes place in our heartsor the qalb.

One of the meanings of "qalb" in Arabic is "that whichturns". The heart has the capacity to turn, on the onehand, toward the nafs, dunya and Iblis, or, on the otherhand, the qalb can turn toward the realm of spirit andDivinity.

When the qalb turns, by the grace of God, towardthe spirit and Divinity, it begins to wake up. When theqalb turns toward nafs and so on, it goes to sleep.

What we each must come to understand from thebottom of our souls is that we are being forcefullyinvaded by an alien presence within us when we beginto feel a sense of spiritual malaise. This is not sciencefiction ... it is life.

An authentic shaykh plays the part of Kevin McCarthyand, among other things, tries to warn people of theimminent danger to which their spiritual lives arebeing exposed as a result of the invasion of the soulsnatchers within and around us. Of course, few peoplebelieve such a person and consider the words of thespiritual guide to be the rants and ravings of a madperson or a possessed individual.

Moreover, because there are many "people" in theworld who already have become transformed and,therefore, no longer are human, in any essential sense,but, now, are alien, in nature, these allies of the invadershelp to work against any attempts which are designed toassist people to awaken from the horrors of the nightmarewhich are all too real. Consequently, there will be manywho will beckon us to go back to sleep and seek to convinceus that we will feel much better when the transformationis all over and we, too, have become an alien in humanform.

Just like the heroes and heroines of the movies, weall are engaged in life and death struggle for ourspiritual survival. If we go to sleep too deeply and/orfor too long a period of time, we may, very well,spiritually die. If, with God's grace and the assistanceof those whom God has appointed to serve thispurpose, we struggle to wake up, then we have thechance to stay human and resist becoming alien toour essential Self.

One of our problems is that we often don't knowwhich movie, so to speak, we are in. Are weparticipating in the original version where the hero-- in this case, hopefully, oneself -- finally convincesthe authorities (that is, one's intelligence andmotivational capacities) that steps must be takento avert the tragedy which is threatening humanexistence (namely, ours)? Or, are we playing a partin the re-make of the original version of 'Invasion ofthe Body Snatchers' in which all may be in theprocess of being lost to the onslaught of the alieninvasion going on within us, both individuallyand collectively?

Each of us is the script writer, director, actressand producer of the film. The ending is ours tochoose.

We should be very clear, however, that this filmwhich is being made, even as we speak, is notfiction. It is real, and it is unfolding before oureyes -- both internally and externally, bothspiritually and physically.

To borrow from another film, Lawrence of Arabia,I am reminded of the words which Omar Sherif'scharacter says to the Peter O'Toole character asthey are crossing, I believe, the Nefu desert, whereto go to sleep can mean death. His Arab friend sternlycautions Lawrence: "Be warned, you were drifting",as Lawrenceis caught napping while riding a camel.

A similar caution could be directed to each of : 'Bewarned, you are drifting' as we cross the great desertof dunya or worldly entanglements created by thedynamic interaction of our collective desires, ambitions,and destructive emtions.

We cannot afford to go to sleep, or we risk losingeverything of value, even if opuor physical livesremains intact. We each need to wake up to thehorror of the alien life form which is within us, and,as well we need to be mindful of the dangers tospiritual life that are lurking all about us - any, andall, of which can destroy us - as might be true of aperson journeying across a physical desert.

We need to hold tightly to the hand of friendshipwhich, God willing, may be extended to us duringour journey through life. On the Path, we needcompany to help keep us awake and alert to thedangers which are hiding in the night and waitingto pounce upon us should we relax our vigilanceand forget the purpose or destination for which wehave undertaken the journey.

Unfortunately, and to add a further twist to theplot lines of our lives, not everyone who claims tobe capable of guiding one across the deserts ofdunya, nafs, and Iblis is capable of doing so. In fact,like Leonard Nimoy in the remake of 'Invasion of theBody Snatchers', sometimes the people to whom wego for help and guidance have already beentransformed into alien creatures who have no lovefor humanity or the human soul, despite having anexterior form which suggests otherwise, and despitetheir willingness to serve as a trusted guide acrossthe deserts of life, or to serve as a physician of theheart who can assist us to rid ourselves of ourspiritual malaise.

Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware, for,sometimes, truth can be stranger, trickier, andmore sinister than fiction. The choice is before eachof us: do we struggle to become fully human or dowe permit ourselves to become Pod-people ...human-like on the outside, but spiritually deadinside. Be warned ... sleep is close at hand.